lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Jun]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCHv4] SGI UV: TLB shootdown using broadcast assist unit
Date
On Thursday 12 June 2008 22:56, Cliff Wickman wrote:
> Hi Nick,
>
> On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 10:35:29PM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > On Thursday 12 June 2008 22:23, Cliff Wickman wrote:

> > For someone not too familiar with low level x86 (or UV) code, can
> > you explain why you are hooking at this point? I mean, what it
> > looks like is either a performance improvement, or for some reason
> > UV does not support send_IPI_mask out to CPUs "not on the local node".
>
> Yes, a performance improvement. The UV machine has hardware for
> broadcasting messages to a set of nodes (represented in a bit mask). The
> messages will raise interrupts at each of the target nodes and provide
> the message - all in one step.
> (IPI is supported. In fact this patch falls back to the IPI method
> if all the cpus on the remote nodes do not respond.)

Thanks, that makes it perfectly clear to me now (the intent, not
the details of the code :))

So long as this raises a maskable interrupt on each target CPU, it
doesn't break x86's lockless get_user_pages :)


> > If the former, what sort of improvement to you expect / see?
>
> Good question. The hardware does not exist yet. But using IPI there
> would be one set of packets exchanged to deliver the interrupts and
> another set to pull over the flush address, just to start the operation.
> I expect the improvement to be significant.

Ah, so you can send a small message with the IPI, and that can be
decoded and used by the target without invoking the cc protocol.
Seems like pretty sweet functionality.

I guess TLB flushing is an obvious candidate, but it could be
quite useful for other operations as well. I wonder if it couldn't
be used to create a slightly more advanced API (than send_IPI)
which other platforms can just implement using cache coherency for
the payload...

For example, some classes of smp_call_function could use this too.

But for now I don't see anything wrong with getting this patch
upstream and looking to generalise it later.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-06-12 15:21    [W:0.073 / U:1.272 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site